Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

FDA’s ‘Wait and See’ Approach to BPA Not Acceptable — and Not the Only Option

Last Friday, the FDA denied the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) citizen petition requesting that the agency ban Bisphenol A (BPA) as an approved food additive and food contact substance.  The agency took nearly three years to issue this decision, and did so only under a court’s order. The FDA’s denial of the petition was disappointing, because the existing science on BPA is strong enough to warrant restrictions on its use. The announcement was an unsurprising continuation of the federal government’s “wait and see” approach to BPA regulation. 

FDA spokesman Douglas Karas said that “this announcement is not a final safety determination and the FDA continues to support research examining the safety of BPA.”  There is no question that continued risk assessment and scientific study of BPA should be part of the FDA’s action plan for addressing the health and safety concerns that recent scientific studies on BPA have raised.  Earlier this year, CPR released a white paper, Protecting the Public from BPA:  An Action Plan for Federal Agencies, providing a list of short-term and long-term actions that federal agencies could take to address some of these mounting concerns about BPA.  At the top of our list for FDA was a continued and aggressive pursuit of the Agency’s collaborative research projects with the National Center for Toxicological Research and the National Toxicology Program.

In the meantime, however, I would remind FDA that a large body of scientific evidence already exists (and continues to collect) that supports increased restrictions on BPA’s use in food contact materials.  FDA itself has taken note of these concerns in its previous statements on BPA.  While FDA may see an all-out ban of this endocrine-disrupting chemical as too extreme or time-consuming, and continued scientific study is indeed imperative, there are a number of safeguards that would provide the public with some protections in the interim – much better than simply a “wait and see” approach.  Here’s what the FDA should do:

  • Issue “BPA-Free” Labeling Guidance. “BPA-Free” labels are everywhere but provide consumers with a false sense of security, because BPA is often simply replaced with other endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  FDA should issue labeling guidance on the use of “BPA-Free” labels to ensure that these labels are not misleading or inaccurate and carry some meaningful assurances of protection.  This guidance should include a recommendation that any “BPA-Free” labeled product that merely uses a replacement endocrine-disrupting product would be considered misbranded.
  • Issue New Guidance and Use Standards for Food Contact Substance Notification Applicants. Since 2002, packaging uses of BPA have been approved under the Food Contact Substance Notification process.  For any future applicants, FDA could issue guidance stating that any new Food Contact Substance Notification applications for a new BPA use will most likely face denial if the new use involves contact with certain foods, such as infant formula, or a dangerous target consumer, such as children.
  • Revoke Existing and New BPA Uses Approved under the Food Contact Substance Notification Process. As a further step, FDA could revoke approved Food Contact Substance Notifications and affirmatively deny applications with the aim of putting a pause on new BPA uses and imposing new safety testing, exposure, and use standards for BPA.  If consumers must wait and see while the safety is affirmed, so too should industry.
  • Rewrite Redbook Protocols for BPA and other Endocrine Disruptors. Continued scientific evaluation is imperative, and that research must take into account how BPA and other endocrine disrupting chemicals do not fit the traditional risk assessment mold, where “the dose makes the poison” and higher doses of a chemical lead to increased risks.  Underlying scientific protocols must be rewritten to account for the unique low-dose adverse affects of these chemicals and alternative study endpoints.
  • Issue New Regulations for BPA Uses. Beginning in 1958, FDA approved certain uses of BPA as indirect food additives.  FDA has the power to issue new regulations prescribing the conditions under which those uses are deemed safe.  FDA should utilize this authority and issue new regulations outlining specific use and safety parameters for BPA.  While FDA won’t issue an across-the-board ban of BPA at this time, there are a number of more focused regulations that could provide some much needed safeguards. For example, specific uses could be banned, labeling requirements for all materials containing BPA (i.e. let the consumer decide whether they would like BPA in their products), or mandating the submission of specific toxicity and exposure testing information on a regular basis.

Any of these action items would demonstrate a commitment to protecting the public, while also allowing for more scientific research to progress.  It’s time for FDA to act on the part of the people it is meant to protect.

Showing 2,817 results

Aimee Simpson | April 4, 2012

FDA’s ‘Wait and See’ Approach to BPA Not Acceptable — and Not the Only Option

Last Friday, the FDA denied the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) citizen petition requesting that the agency ban Bisphenol A (BPA) as an approved food additive and food contact substance.  The agency took nearly three years to issue this decision, and did so only under a court’s order. The FDA’s denial of the petition was […]

Ben Somberg | April 2, 2012

Member Scholars Write to EPA Concerning Slow Consideration of Citizen Environmental Complaints in NAFTA Countries

When the United States signed NAFTA, it also signed the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which allows, among other things, for citizens to submit complaints to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) with claims that their own governments are failing to enforce environmental laws. That key provision is in danger, a group of […]

Alice Kaswan | March 28, 2012

Greenhouse Gas Standards for New Power Plants: Glass Half-Full and Half-Empty

With congressional action on climate change at a standstill, EPA’s new source performance standards (NSPSs) for greenhouse gases (GHGs) from new power plants should be applauded.  As required by the Clean Air Act, the agency is doggedly moving forward to establish emission standards for GHGs, air pollutants that unquestionably endanger human health and welfare. EPA […]

Holly Doremus | March 26, 2012

Court Skeptical of EPA’s Section 404 Role Overturns Mine Veto

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. Regular readers of this blog know that on January 13, 2011, EPA vetoed a Clean Water Act section 404 permit issued by the Corp of Engineers for valley fill at the Spruce No. 1 mountaintop removal mine project in West Virginia. This was only the 13th time EPA had used its […]

Joel A. Mintz | March 24, 2012

After Sackett: What Next for Administrative Compliance Orders?

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a unanimous decision–key features of which are summarized in a thoughtful post by Nina Mendelson–the Court held that the plaintiff landowner had a right to challenge the Clean Water Act administrative compliance order (ACO) which EPA […]

Nina Mendelson | March 21, 2012

SCOTUS Decision in Sackett v. EPA Weakens Government’s Ability to Respond to Urgent Threats to Water Quality

In the Sackett v. EPA decision today, the Supreme Court rejected a broad argument that the Sacketts’ constitutional due process rights had been violated when they could not go to court immediately to challenge an EPA order requiring them to remove fill and replant vegetation on their property. But the Court did hold that under the […]

Sidney A. Shapiro | March 20, 2012

Limiting the Rights of Medical Malpractice Victims: House GOP Leaders Make a Bad Idea Worse

House GOP leaders may vote as early as this week on legislation that would eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a cost-saving measure that was established as part of the national health care reform Congress passed in 2010.  House leaders have also attached national restrictions on the right of patients to recover damages for […]

Rena Steinzor | March 20, 2012

Obama Administration’s Latest Sop to the Anti-Regulatory Crowd: Buying the Cumulative Burden Pitch

This post was written by CPR President Rena Steinzor and CPR Policy Analyst James Goodwin. Earlier today, OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein released a new memorandum to agencies directing them to consider and account for the “cumulative” costs of their regulations.  Attacking the cumulative costs of regulation has been a favored tactic among regulated industries and […]

Sidney A. Shapiro | March 19, 2012

The Regulatory Freeze Bill: Cynical Political Posturing That Would Harm the Economy

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary committee is marking up the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act (H.R. 4078), which would block virtually any “significant regulatory action”—basically, any step toward promulgating any regulation that has a large economic impact or is otherwise controversial— as long as unemployment is over 6 percent.   Rather than support initiatives that actually help […]